Snell & Wilmer IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA. Leslie Feldman, et al.,

Transcription

1 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 Brett W. Johnson (#0) Sara J. Agne (#00) Joy L. Isaacs (#00) SNELL & WILMER One Arizona Center 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 Telephone: Facsimile: bwjohnson@swlaw.com sagne@swlaw.com jisaacs@swlaw.com Timothy A. La Sota (#0) TIMOTHY A. LA SOTA, PLC E. Camelback Road, Suite 0 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Telephone: tim@timlasota.com Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant Arizona Republican Party Leslie Feldman, et al., v. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Plaintiffs, Arizona Secretary of State s Office, et al., Defendants. FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No. CV--0-PHX-DLR PARTIAL ANSWER-IN- INTERVENTION TO AMENDED COMPLAINT For its Partial Answer-in-Intervention to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint (Dkt. ), Intervenor-Defendant the Arizona Republican Party ( Intervenor-Defendant ) admits, denies, and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION. Intervenor-Defendant admits that the above-captioned action was brought under U.S.C.. Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.

2 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite Intervenor-Defendant admits that the language quoted in paragraph of the Amended Complaint can be found in Wesberry v. Sanders, U.S. (). Intervenor- Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint as to the rationale behind Plaintiffs bringing suit in the above-captioned action, and therefore denies the same. Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that the language quoted in paragraph of the Amended Complaint can be found in U.S.C. 00(c) (0) (formerly cited as U.S.C. (a)). Intervenor-Defendant admits that Arizona became a covered jurisdiction subject to the requirements of Section of the Voting Rights Act on September,. Voting Rights Act Amendments of : Partial List of Determinations, 0 Fed. Reg. (Sept., ). Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Maricopa County has been in the news for election-related matters. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegation that voters were unable to wait in lines or were disenfranchised, and therefore denies the same. Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same. --

3 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same.. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint, and therefore denies the same. 0. Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph 0 of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint. JURISDICTION AND VENUE. Intervenor-Defendant admits that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. Intervenor-Defendant further admits that this Court has jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that this Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties for purposes of this action.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that venue is proper in this Court. Intervenor- Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint. PARTIES. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 0, and, of the Amended. Paragraphs and contain legal conclusions to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs and of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant the Arizona Republican Party is a state committee, as defined by U.S.C. 00() and A.R.S. -0, et seq. The Arizona Republican Party has members and constituents from across Arizona, and is dedicated to electing --

4 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 local, state, and national candidates of the Republican Party to public office in Arizona and throughout the United States. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Arizona became a covered jurisdiction subject to the requirements of Section of the Voting Rights Act on September,. Voting Rights Act Amendments of : Partial List of Determinations, 0 Fed. Reg. (Sept., ). Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Arizona became a state in, and that Native Americans were able to vote in Arizona in. Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph 0 of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that the Voting Rights Act was amended in 0 to suspend the use of literacy tests. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Proposition was passed in Arizona on November, 00. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Proposition 0 was passed in Arizona in 0, and that Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., S. Ct. (), held that the National Voter Registration Act preempted Arizona s proof-of-citizenship --

5 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 requirement. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant admits that the language quoted in paragraph of the Amended Complaint can be found in Melendres v. Arpaio, F.Supp.d (D. Ariz. ). Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant admits that the Arizona Legislature passed Senate Bill 00 in 0. The remaining allegations in paragraph are legal conclusions to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint.. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Arizona became a covered jurisdiction subject to the requirements of Section of the Voting Rights Act on September,. Voting Rights Act Amendments of : Partial List of Determinations, 0 Fed. Reg. (Sept., ). Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph 0 of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs of the Amended. Paragraph contains legal conclusions to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraph of the Amended Complaint. 0. Paragraph contains legal conclusions as it relates to A.R.S. - and -, to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations related to A.R.S. - and - in paragraph of the Amended Complaint. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or --

6 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 0 of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant admits that Arizona became a covered jurisdiction subject to the requirements of Section of the Voting Rights Act on September,. Voting Rights Act Amendments of : Partial List of Determinations, 0 Fed. Reg. (Sept., ). Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the remaining allegations in paragraph of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs 0 of the Amended. Intervenor-Defendant asserts that paragraphs will be addressed in its forthcoming Motion to Dismiss, after appropriate consultation pursuant to the Court s Order (Dkt. ), and therefore are not addressed herein.. Intervenor-Defendant asserts that paragraphs 0 will be addressed in its forthcoming Motion to Dismiss, after appropriate consultation pursuant to the Court s Order (Dkt. ), and therefore are not addressed herein. CAUSES OF ACTION. Intervenor-Defendant incorporates by this reference the previous answers to Plaintiffs Amended Complaint as if fully set forth herein.. Intervenor-Defendant asserts that paragraphs,,,, and will be addressed in its forthcoming Motion to Dismiss, after appropriate consultation pursuant to the Court s Order (Dkt. ), and therefore are not addressed herein.. Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs,,,,,,, and of the Amended Complaint. --

7 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite Intervenor-Defendant is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in paragraphs,, and of the Amended 0. Paragraphs 0,, and 0 contain legal conclusions to which a response is not required. To the extent a response is required, Intervenor-Defendant denies the allegations in paragraphs 0,, and 0 of the Amended Complaint. GENERAL DENIAL Intervenor-Defendant denies all allegations in the Amended Complaint not expressly admitted herein, other than those found in paragraphs,,,, and, which will be specifically addressed in Intervenor-Defendant s forthcoming Motion to Dismiss, after appropriate consultation pursuant to the Court s Order (Dkt. ). PRAYER FOR RELIEF Intervenor-Defendant denies Plaintiffs prayer for relief contained in the unnumbered paragraph beginning Wherefore, including every subparagraph, to the extent that such requested relief violates applicable state and federal law. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES. Plaintiffs fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.. Plaintiffs claims are futile because the actions described are neither discriminatory nor suppressive.. Plaintiffs lack standing to bring some or all of the claims asserted in this suit.. Certain Plaintiffs are not qualified electors as required by state law and therefore cannot bring some or all of the claims asserted in this action.. Plaintiffs are estopped from bringing some or all of the claims asserted in this action.. Plaintiffs are equitably estopped from bringing some or all of the claims asserted in this action.. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or part by the doctrine of laches. --

8 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite Plaintiffs have waived their rights to bring some or all of the claims asserted in this action.. Plaintiffs are barred from bringing some or all of the claims in this action after the Presidential Preference Election. 0. Plaintiffs are barred from bringing some or all of the claims in this action prior to the effective date of the law contained in H.B... Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of res judicata.. Plaintiffs claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of illegality.. Plaintiffs requested relief violates the equal protection provisions of the Arizona and United States Constitutions.. Plaintiffs requested relief violates the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.. Plaintiffs have failed to exhaust administrative remedies.. Plaintiffs claims fail, in whole or in part, to the extent that they rely on inadmissible hearsay.. Plaintiffs claims fail, in whole or in part, to the extent that one or more of the named voters listed did not suffer any actionable harm. Wherefore, Intervenor-Defendant prays for judgment as follows: A. That Plaintiffs take nothing by way of their Amended Complaint; B. That the Court enter judgment in favor of Defendants and Intervenor- Defendant and against Plaintiffs on any and all claims for relief alleged in the Amended Complaint; C. That Intervenor-Defendant recovers its attorneys fees and costs in this suit; and D. For such other relief as the Court deems fair, just, and proper. --

9 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 DATED this th day of May,. Respectfully submitted, SNELL & WILMER By: /s/ Brett W. Johnson Brett W. Johnson Sara J. Agne Joy L. Isaacs One Arizona Center 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 Timothy A. La Sota E. Camelback Road, Suite 0 Phoenix, Arizona 0 Attorneys for Intervenor-Defendant Arizona Republican Party --

10 Case :-cv-00-dlr Document - Filed 0/0/ Page 0 of 0 One Arizona Center, 00 E. Van Buren, Suite 00 0 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on May,, I electronically transmitted the foregoing document to the Clerk s Office using the CM/ECF System for filing and transmittal of a notice of electronic filing to the EM/ECF registrants. /s/ Tracy Hobbs 0-0-